Hey stealhdozer no fair!! You gave the credit about the fanatic to sharon!!! I was the first one to say that! [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/frown.gif[/IMG]....this ain't the first time that i haven't gotten the credit for what i said...u guys are so mean!!

P.S. did anyone ACTUALLY read what i said?? or did steatlh dozer stop right after rual and starting typing....oh well

Mea Culpa! My apologies, Raven! You did, in fact, use the “F” word before Sharon did. You also correctly comprehended that I did not state all athletes and all theists were “evil”. Other than the fact that they are both famous participants of contact sports, I would be reluctant otherwise to place Wayne Bledsoe and Mike Tyson within the same category.

When theists (and/or fanatics?) are denied violence or the use of force, such as via the Internet, they will typically claim that their god or gods are one of love, or some other wholesome or beneficial concept. Both theistic manuscripts and the long, dark history of theistic violence contradict this argument.

With theistic violence factored out of the debate, atheists and agnostics are often treated to the fallacy of an “argument to ignorance”. The fact that one cannot prove that god or gods do not exist does not prove good god or gods do exist.

Another fallacious debate advocated by theists is the “argument from design”. The perception that the world is a beautiful, wondrous place does not prove god or gods created it.

The eminent philosopher Immanuel Kant held that while we cannot know god the idea of god is a practical necessity. While it is true that many who believe in theism, and perhaps fideism and deism, cannot imagine living without faith, the thriving existence of atheists and agnostics disprove the claim that all people require faith. I’d like to note, for the record, that neither fideist or deist has ever assaulted me nor others I am aware of over the differences in belief structures. They, too, have suffered from theistic violence.

Consider what Polybius (? -118B.C.) wrote: “Since the masses of the people are inconstant, full of unruly desires, passionate, and reckless of the consequences, they must be filled with fears to keep them in order. The ancients did well, therefore, to invent gods, and the belief in punishment after death”.

This well falls under the realm of self-defense, however, when theists are able to apply force or violence against those who do not believe as they do, including against their fellow theists! This generally does not hold true for other irrational beliefs. I’ve often been assaulted, or had my vehicle vandalized, by theists infuriated by my refusal to share their beliefs. Others, too, have shared this fate, and theistic violence is a too well documented a phenomenon to deny the dangers of. This violence is seldom spawned from the minds of other irrational thinkers. Other than perhaps San Francisco’s “Zodiac Killer” of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, there has been little if any documented astrological violence.

I certainly do not believe that all theists are violent, nor did I make that statement. I willingly concede that perhaps it is just the fanatics who are causing all the problems. My question then would be: how does one reliably determine if they are dealing with a gentle theist or dangerous fanatic prior to the escalation of force? If one cannot reliably perceive the difference, then may I propose that my statement “Be wary of theists” is valid from a self-defense perspective?

In some ways, all this may be subsumed by “Beware of people if they are insensitive, suffer from an extreme lack of empathy, and usually denigrate others who they perceive as being very different from themselves, or if they habitually slander others with hostile or threatening language or gestures. I can visualize some lunatic preacher of the old time gospel religion of fire and brimstone angrily screaming, “You are all heathens and you are all going to Hell”, just before passing the plate, of course. Some people’s omnipotent creators are always short of cash.

This catagory may also include the ideologues you warned us of, too, Raven [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG]

Was it me who stated on your earlier post"It's not what you see rather how you percieve it"? yes I think it was maby some are beginning to see(realize) what I was talking about.

also, keep in mind that certain behavior traits can be symptomes of a larger problem.

not that you want to psychoanilize the local bully but it will help you to recognize him the points of self entitlement and narcissim are pretty much right on in my book, however generalizing is a very bad idea.one will miss out on alot in life if viewed through a lens of generalities.

someone who has participated in "contact/violent" sports is familiar with the phisicalities that violence entails, however it does not nessessarily mean that one has a propensity towards violence.those factors are more likely rooted in the psyche of the individual.there are signs to look out for thoughas said earlier: narcissim, sense of entitlement,selfishness,lack of respect for other humans, lack of remorse (or acceptance for the consequenses for ones actions. My point is to "break the cycle" one has to change ones perspective .

Many confuse the value of a thing with its use or application (this is very relevant in a martial forum, especially concerning the positive or negative moral value of weaponry and fighting arts). It is wholly unfair to qualify a belief or an entire category of sport based on the outrageously perverted abnormal use of such.

If you do not know the purpose of a thing, then abuse (abnormal use) is inevitable. All groups, races, religions, beliefs, schools, families, governments, businesses, arts, sports, have their own special ignorant that take a perfectly pure ideal and twist it around their personal hurts with the intention of punishing others. This is never a reflection on the ideal, just on it's application.

By the way, there is a vast difference between fear and respect. Fear is useless and, unchecked, creates cowards. Respect is rooted in understanding and is utterly vital.

ChangLab: Your philosophy of “It’s not what you see but how you perceive it” is only true from a certain point of view.

Consider Mike Tyson’s words when he was first charged with assault: “No one ever complained before”. He is an extreme example of an individual well rewarded for violence and aggression by applause and acceptance.He is exactly of which I speak. I’ve meet many such as him, though they were famous only in their own minds.

Syrio: Form and function are not always one. A hammer is the proper tool to use when driving nails. In that sense, a hammer is a good thing.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Stealthdozer:Syrio: Form and function are not always one. A hammer is the proper tool to use when driving nails. In that sense, a hammer is a good thing.

A baby with a hammer is NOT a good thing.[/QUOTE]

That is precisely my point. It makes little sense for a man that has been struck by a baby with a hammer to then spend his life warning people to be careful of people with hammers. The hammer is not the problem.

But to continue with your example, you can essentially give a baby any tool, or even further, most TOYS and the results will be "bad," possibly violent. Shouldn't people be warned to be careful around babies instead of declaring that people who play with toys are "inherently irrational?"

Syrio:A baby with a hammer is more of a hazard to herself. Your analogy is muddled. What are you attempting to convey? That I claimed somewhere that people should not play with toys? That would be nonsense, as I made no such statement.